For those of us in the trenches(microbiology), these overarching theories have little impact on our work.<p>The large number of 'contradictions' discussed in the article are evident in bacteria, viruses.<p>At the same time, it does have an impact. The survival of the fittest concept permeates discussion, presentations and writings.<p>I very much so welcome new advancements in evolutionary biology.
I'm not a biologist, but keen to understand why we are how we are.<p>In the mean time of the last 15 years I've read a lot about that topic. What has triggered me was a study of a fruit fly and the role of RNA for evolution.<p>In that study, the scientist took groups of fruit flies and put them under different environmental stresses. The scientist saw that the flies subjected to high temperature environment changed the color of their eyes to red.
Astonishing about that is that the offsprings of that flies also had red eyes, too. But they never have been set under thermo-stress nor have experience other stresses.<p>The scientist concluded in the end, that "genetical" changes manifests over 3-4 generations in the DNA, but "live-reactions" or adaption to environmental stresses/environment in general, is caused by the RNA.
If the new "properties" have an evolutionary advantage, than that changes are manifested in the DNA over generations.<p>An other study found a correlation of human mothers carrying a embryo and their food consumption/being under stress. The ones who had suffered hunger and stress during pregnancy (like it has been laid upon them in WW2), birthed babies who are more likely to be FAT in their ++50s.<p>Of course, it's kind of strange to compare the times then and now. Just one word: McDonald's. That's the most likely cause for the former babies to become fatmans.<p>But, just take the example of the fruit flies and transfer that to humans:<p>- when we suffer hunger, our body change to an other chemistry, using other sources of energy, like fat, protein of muscles.<p>- when we do some sports and do muscle training making them big and strong, that, too, lead to a different metabolism.<p>- ...<p>Fat parents are also likely to have fat kids (the causation for both being fat is may be the wrong nutrition).<p>And so on...<p>I think the evolution like Darwin postulated, is completely true. Good man!<p>But the role of RNA and the adaption to stresses isn't understood by now. And I think, it plays a bigger role then we might think. Actually, i think the mutations of DNA are caused by changing chemistry/RNA adapting to stresses. If it has a evolutionary advantage, than it will manifest itself in the DNA.